Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Steve Wiles on 13/01/2009 09:02:54
-
Steve Wiles asked the Naked Scientists:
Does gravity between 2 objects vary dependent on the heat of the two objects?
What do you think?
-
gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the bodies involved.
The mass of a body consists of its rest mass and a relativic component due to the energy it possess M=E/c^2.
This is a tiny amount at everday temperatures and is probably undetectable
-
gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the bodies involved.
The mass of a body consists of its rest mass and a relativic component due to the energy it possess M=E/c^2.
This is a tiny amount at everday temperatures and is probably undetectable
If the body it's at rest, it's all (rest) mass = mass and this increases with temperature.
-
The point I was rather ineffectively trying to make was although mass and energy are both affected by gravity how small the effect is in every day situations.
I calculate that heating one liter of water from 0°C to 100°C will increase its effective mass by .00464 nanograms.
A more interesting case arises when we look at the mass of Baryons although in this case the forces involved are strong nuclear mediated by Gluons
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081120/full/news.2008.1246.html
PS this is a very interesting article now only available to members, if any kind soul could email me a copy I would be very grateful
-
The answer is yes gravity varies inversely with temperature the colder a galaxy the larger the gravitational force it will eventually implode.
-
When you heat up something you transfer energy to it, that energy can be seen as mass.
(Ah, I do have some views here, but I will keep quiet:)
On the other hand most (all?) matter will expand when heat is added.
That means that the density, and mass, of the object will become smaller smaller per unit volume.
But the answer is a definite yes.
Any which way:)
-
The answer is yes gravity varies inversely with temperature the colder a galaxy the larger the gravitational force it will eventually implode.
[???]
-
The answer to the original question is no. Gravity does not in any way depend on temperature.
-
To lightarrow HUH if you don't understand my reply wouldn't it have been easier to say that you dont know where I am going with this one.
-
To lightarrow HUH if you don't understand my reply wouldn't it have been easier to say that you dont know where I am going with this one.
No, you are not even starting, because what you say is wrong.
-
How can a cold object possible have a higher gravitational 'field' than a hot one? That makes no sense to me. We know that gravity is proportional to mass. We know that mass increases as you add energy (although I agree the amount is very tiny indeed), and the corrolory is that it decreases with less energy. That means that a hot object has more mass than a cold one and the corollary of that is that a hot object has a higher gravity than a cold one (albeit so tiny that it would probably be undetectable)....
-
We know that gravity is proportional to g (the gravitational constant) and the square of the masses but there are problems with the maths we now have dark matter which corrects the problem but we still don't know what it is, lets hope Stephen comes up with an answer.
-
Did the Maths again gravity is invesely proportioal to temperature.
g proportional to C/T
It was derived from the Curie_ Wiess Law.
g is the gravitational constant, C is the Curie constant and T the absolute temperatue.
A Davis B.Sc. 15th January 2009.
-
Did the Maths again gravity is invesely proportioal to temperature.
g proportional to C/T
It was derived from the Curie_ Wiess Law.
g is the gravitational constant, C is the Curie constant and T the absolute temperatue.
A Davis B.Sc. 15th January 2009.
You mean "magnetic susceptibility" not "gravitational constant":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curie-Weiss_law
-
You are correct but I have used another equation to convert magnetic susceptibility to g. Not shown.
-
You are correct but I have used another equation to convert magnetic susceptibility to g. Not shown.
Ok, but it would be science fiction...
-
I worked out the equation but forgot to test it numericaly in order to see if it had a significant effect. Been doing that today. So assuming that a star has some Iron in it's core and that it's temperature is about three million degrees then mu,r is approximately one, now if the star cools down to 1100degK the Curie temp then mu,r is 5000 a very large change. I am saying that the gravity will change by this amount as well provided there is no significant change in its spin. A cold Galaxy will implode. I am reluctant to put the full equation in at this point in time, thinking of setting up a Website.
-
A Davis what you are saying sounds like rubbish to me but if you want to explain it in more detail post it in the "new theories" area not here. This is the place for well established scientific explanations.
-
Has Cambridge University solved J12 + 1/2
-
That question is not clearly understandable without giving proper context and just looks like mystic rubbish to me.
-
Jn + 1/2 are half integer Bessel Functions and are used in the solution for the Proton. Has Cambridge University solved J12 + 1/2
-
I now understand it a bit better. Bessel functions are used for lots of things inculding analysing the harmonic series of bells but I still do not see the significance of the question. Bessel functions have been known for hundreds of years
-
Half integer bessel functions are different from ordinary bessel functions. They take into account that action at a distance is not possible it's given the word {retarded potential} it takes time to act. There was a programme on BBC4 about Stephen one of His young Students said that they were working on the 12th solution I understood what he meant. I am looking for someone with the same understanding on this site who has a link with Cambridge University and can answer the question, I apologise but I was testing you. I still need to know. Has Cambridge University
solved J12 + 1/2
-
Half integer bessel functions are different from ordinary bessel functions. They take into account that action at a distance is not possible it's given the word {retarded potential} it takes time to act. There was a programme on BBC4 about Stephen one of His young Students said that they were working on the 12th solution I understood what he meant. I am looking for someone with the same understanding on this site who has a link with Cambridge University and can answer the question, I apologise but I was testing you. I still need to know. Has Cambridge University
solved J12 + 1/2
There is no need to look for "strange" mathematics. Try to solve:
y'(x) = log[x + y(x)];
y(0) = 1.
-
I've put the equation you require on the new theory forum.
-
gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the bodies involved.
The mass of a body consists of its rest mass and a relativic component due to the energy it possess M=E/c^2.
This is a tiny amount at everday temperatures and is probably undetectable
If the body it's at rest, it's all (rest) mass = mass and this increases with temperature.
So Lightarrow:)
How do we differ between a uniformly accelerating system containing 'energy' and a system supposedly being at rest (relative the system measuring)
Can we differ between them?
If the only observation possible will be that other system?
So what is this being at rest.
Or could uniform acceleration be seen as an example of being 'at rest' too?
-----
(By 'uniform acceleration I mean a steady acceleration one G of gravity being generated, into time eternal:)
And yes, the question is just a 'nuance' but I do want to know.
And to really see what I mean one will have to imagine the 'system' existing of you as well as of what you observes.
And the point being that acceleration when done 'un-uniformly' will show you that there is no 'rest' inside your system but when done uniformly that acceleration will as easily be seen as 'gravitation'.
Or am I bicycling again?
-
gravitational force is proportional to the mass of the bodies involved.
The mass of a body consists of its rest mass and a relativic component due to the energy it possess M=E/c^2.
This is a tiny amount at everday temperatures and is probably undetectable
If the body it's at rest, it's all (rest) mass = mass and this increases with temperature.
So Lightarrow:)
How do we differ between a uniformly accelerating system containing 'energy' and a system supposedly being at rest (relative the system measuring)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Be more specific and expose your question more clearly (maybe it's not you but me [:)])
-
yor-on and lightarrow are deliberately trying to mask this site to prevent users seeing the gravity versus temperature theory, go to the beginning and read it all. A.D.
-
woops:)
Didn't know this.
I don't think Lightarrow knew it either:)
I was on one such site once though.
It was extremly interesting when i first came to it.
Then people started to 'coagulate' behind 'private messages' and decided to throw out those they saw as 'cranks'
And the result of their behavior is the reason I started to look for a more open minded forum.
I do not go behind peoples back, my friend.
There they had a ranking system where in you could put what you thought of people, negative statements as well as positive, and as I didn't accept their views of how a forum should be defined, well you can guess the rest A.D:)
So that statement makes me kind of disappointed.
Under my time there i leaved two negatives.
And not because the guy didn't know their physics.
Just because those people had put it into system to troll trash and give 'negs'.
They had a bad cause of 'ubermensch' in them, and also they used, what i learnt as being, 'sockpuppets' to put forward their views.
We don't have this system here, and hopefully we will never have it.
But it feels kind of strange being accused of what i fought over a year to stop.
-
A Davis appears to be trying to generate a conspiracy theory against himself just because he hasn't said anything that is sensical.
-
yor-on and lightarrow are deliberately trying to mask this site to prevent users seeing the gravity versus temperature theory, go to the beginning and read it all. A.D.
Well, I have read the thread from start to finish several times; I don't see a solid argument that gravity is dependent upon temperature. Temperature does contribute to mass, but this doesn't seem to be at the heart of the discussion. And it would seem to refute the A Davis hypothesis. But I have not yet studied it enough to come to a conclusion. Not that it would matter to anyone [:)]
-
The answer is yes gravity varies inversely with temperature the colder a galaxy the larger the gravitational force it will eventually implode.
Even if that were true (and I'm not sure that it makes enough sense to be either true or false) then it's not an answer to the original question which asks about 2 bodies.
It has been generally accpted that 2 hot bodies, because of their relativistic mass gain compared to 2 cold bodies will have more mass and, therfore, a slightly larger atraction.
I'd also like to know what Cambridge has to do with the question.
If, for example, some bloke in a field in India solved it, would that be different in some way?
-
yor-on and lightarrow are deliberately trying to mask this site to prevent users seeing the gravity versus temperature theory, go to the beginning and read it all. A.D.
EEEhhh???
What kind of stuff are you smoking in these days?
But is this dude real or he's a computer software or something else?
[:(!]
-
You're right, Lightarrow.
It wasn't very clear at all.
It's the bane of my thoughts, I get this idea into my head, and it colours all 'readings' I do afterwards of my text.
That's one way how to become a 'King of Edits':)
If we had two systems.
Both holding an 'observers frame' as well as another 'frame of reference'.
With the observer traveling 'aside' the frame observed.
Notice that I try to avoid the words 'being at rest' here:)
In one you have an observation of that other frame accelerating at an 'uneven' pace, going from zero and up, constantly building gravitational 'force'.
In the other system, (as if by magic:), the acceleration constantly produces a uniform acceleration of one G.
Can the observer differ between that uniform acceleration and 'a normal gravitational field' if the only thing observed is that other frame?
And the reason I ask is just that acceleration seems such a special circumstance in 'spacetime'.
---
2. Will there be an age difference between a twin traveling at a uniform acceleration of one G (constantly) and his twin, being on a planet of one G.
When meeting in the same 'frame of reference' later?
(like both being on Earth afterwards).
---
To me both examples seem to be one of acceleration?
And I expect a definite age difference.
But in one system it seems that there are no way of differing between 'acceleration' and a 'uniform gravitational field'.
And I'm bicycling in the great blue yonder here, right:)
-----------
I could as easily have described it as only one frame of reference I suppose:)
With the observer and the observed in the same frame.
But i wanted to 'catch' this nuance.
"How do we differ between a uniformly accelerating system containing 'energy' and a system supposedly being at rest (relative the system measuring)-- (Earth)--"
--
And to be honest, I'm not sure that I have succeeded in clarifying it now either:)
-
I'd also like to know what Cambridge has to do with the question.
If, for example, some bloke in a field in India solved it, would that be different in some way?
I gleaned from the Cambridge question that A. Davis was referring to the QM solution for the second electron of the Helium atom. Which as far as I know has not been solved except by repeated approximation. He was testing to see if his correspondent knew about that.
-
2. Will there be an age difference between a twin traveling at a uniform acceleration of one G (constantly) and his twin, being on a planet of one G.
When meeting in the same 'frame of reference' later?
(like both being on Earth afterwards).
There will be a difference; the twin accelerating at one G will travel a much greater distance and must accelerate and decelerate relative to his gravity twin. I think this is mainstream GR, but if not it is so in my pet speculative universe.
It is case: 6 in The Evidence (http://photontheory.com/TheEvidence.html).
Here is the relevant quote:
Case Six: Time slows for a moving object. Time dilation is a natural consequence of the photon construct of nature. The repetition rate of patterns in Atoms must slow when atoms move. This is because the overall distance a photon must move to remain in the pattern is greater when the containing object is moving. Since the photon is already moving at the speed of light and can't move any faster, it uses more time to complete the pattern. The repetition rate of these patterns is the final arbiter of time in all things. So time slows for a moving object. And knowing this, we can also know that the effect of the slowing of time is accumulative for the moving object. We can solve the so called "twin paradox" simply by knowing which twin moved the greater distance relative to the special fixed frame of reference in space. No matter that our instruments can't determine that fixed frame, it still must exist. Instruments can't detect it because all instruments are effected by movement just exactly as they would necessarily be effected if they were made of photons.
-
Yes Vern, that is how I see it too.
The problem I have here is how to see acceleration:)
Uniform acceleration at one G seems to me the same as experiencing a gravitational field of one G.
It is pretty simple to prove that they are not the same mathematically, but I don't see how to prove it from that 'thought experiment' I suggested.
So either the thought experiment is wrong (most probably so) or acceleration if done uniformly is a different thing from un-uniform acceleration, in some strange way.
If that idea would be right their age should be the same under a uniform acceleration.
But if you think about speeds you easily see that this spaceship, uniformly keeping that gravity to one G, in fact is accelerating very quickly to very high speeds.
And acceleration have the property of creating gravity and momentum and also to be expressed as a much larger mass than initially seen.
If that ship stopped accelerating one of those factors would 'drop off'.
The ships 'gravity well' would disappear, but its momentum and relative mass would still be the same as that instant it stopped accelerating.
So we say that acceleration creates the gravity well, and the time changes, when compared to another frame.
And if I understands it right, that uniform motion is a different matter:)
I am just trying to see how to explain it.
So, what about uniform acceleration, how will you prove that this is an acceleration?
Inside that frame for example, not able to observe anything except your steel walls.
-----
And as DB wrote to me, threads really have a tendency to veer off at times.
But I'm sure we somehow will get back to temperature and mass:)
-
So we say that acceleration creates the gravity well, and the time changes, when compared to another frame.
And if I understands it right, that uniform motion is a different matter:)
I am just trying to see how to explain it.
I don't like to think of a gravity well. It infers warping of space-time. This can't happen in any universe that I can visualize. I know that Einstein viewed it that way, however.
-
If gravity warps space then it will do it whether you like it or not. Your ability to visualise it doesn't enter into the question.
-
Vern, reading your reply again I saw your own interpretation (6) of how 'time' might be slowed down.
What I said 'yes' to was the first more generalized statement (main stream:).
When you say 'This is because the overall distance a photon must move to remain in the pattern is greater when the containing object is moving.' I get curious though?
If your photon is a localized object moving in space with a defined area.
And if it then 'oscillates/moves' in some manner, it seems reasonable to expect that the travel those oscillations/circular movement(?) do, will be 'equalized' in the end, as they might have to travel for a longer period of time in one direction, but that movement should then be reduced by the same amount in the 'opposite' direction?
--------------------------> Direction
----photon--
if you let '-' be amount of travel internally.
If you mean that it is when accelerating they will create an unequal proportion of travel inside that 'boundary', shouldn't that be equalized when decelerating?
--------------
But thinking of it again I get very confused.
Then a photon internally would move at a lesser than light speed?
Or how do you visualize this movement.
Also it have to have time?
-
If gravity warps space then it will do it whether you like it or not. Your ability to visualise it doesn't enter into the question.
I can agree with that 100%[:)] However the reverse is also true [:)]
-
If you mean that it is when accelerating they will create an unequal proportion of travel inside that 'boundary', shouldn't that be equalized when decelerating?
The photon can't accelerate or decelerate; it is locked in at the speed of light. That's why matter constructed of energy must distort in order to move. This is consistent with Lorentz; Einstein wanted to distort space and time. Lorentz needed only to distort the matter and the matter's experience of time.
Edit: The Lorentz version is consistent with QM. Einstein's SR and GR are not consistent with QM. That might possibly be the reason Einstein hated QM so much; he hated it but he still contributed to it.
-
Let me put it this way.
If we have a photon constantly creating itself by 'traveling' some not defined distance.
And we assume that it has a certain size.
Or should I see it as a indeterminate 'cloud' with a direction?
I got to admit that they give me a headache how ever I try to see them.
Main stream or your way.
-
But Vern, apropos black holes, if you have Java I think you will find this one entertaining:)
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/
(And they do discuss temperatures too, somewhere:)
-
Let me put it this way.
If we have a photon constantly creating itself by 'traveling' some not defined distance.
And we assume that it has a certain size.
Or should I see it as a indeterminate 'cloud' with a direction?
I got to admit that they give me a headache how ever I try to see them.
Main stream or your way.
-
But Vern, apropos black holes, if you have Java I think you will find this one entertaining:)
http://hubblesite.org/explore_astronomy/black_holes/
(And they do discuss temperatures too, somewhere:)
I normally use the Linux operating system with the Firefox browser, and don't have plugins to view flash player, however I can boot up in Windows XP and do so. Next time I'm in Windows I'll watch it. My statement was just a repeat that relativity phenomena is a natural consequence when you consider that matter is made up of a primary constituent that must always move at the invariant speed of light. That is the most straight forward way to produce relativity phenomena in the natural world. As far as I can determine there is no other natural way to produce relativity phenomena.
-
Sorry Vern, I'm so used to those sites using Java that I didn't check on it.
Do you like Linux:)
What distribution?
I looked a little and found this page.
http://macromedia.mplug.org/
And this one http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/linux.html
But this one seems a joke?
http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Using+the+Flash+plugin+with+Firefox
But this one might give information?
http://support.mozilla.com/tiki-searchresults.php?locale=en-US&q=linux&sa=
Sh* one should start the day the right way, with coffee and ...
Ah well.
(I don't really like the flash player plugin. All those things that says that they allow code to be run on my machine gets me nervous:)
I trust Java though, up to a certain limit.
-
Hi yor_on; the Linux distribution I use is the Fedora Core 9 that I got for 8 bucks from CheapBytes.com.
The problem with Linux is that, being open source and non proprietary, the distributions don't contain proprietary programs like Flash Player.
Back to the discussion; I've been trying to understand the mainstream view of the photon for many years. And I think that most mainstream physicists are not completely at ease with their view of it. They lost me when they decided that they needed virtual photons to explain force mediating interactions. The reason for virtual and not actual is that virtual did not necessarily operate according to the physical laws. It seemed to me like a cop out.
-
Ok, if you use Feodora you have a plugin from Redhat somewhere on those pages:)
But be sure to check for 'dependencies' when you install it.
The 'installers' should make it an easy transition, but it may take some time.
http://www.fedorafaq.org/
Reading 'between the lines' I get the feeling that you want the universe to be a more ordered place than what it seems for the moment:)
Don't we all::))
-
But one thing Vern.
If there is a energy to vacuum?
Then 'virtual energy?' is a possibility.
Even though it seems to create all kinds of 'strange stuff'.
And if there is a transition from one state to another involved.
From 'energy' to 'matter' like when 'non linear states' flips over.
Then you shouldn't be able to have the former state beside it.
Still, if Planck size is a correct description of where our 'spacetime' loses its coherence?
Then that is where the 'backdoor' might be situated?
Sh* Vern, I don't know:)
I just look at the phenomena described and try to make it understandable to me::))
-
Reading 'between the lines' I get the feeling that you want the universe to be a more ordered place than what it seems for the moment:)
Don't we all::))
Yes, I would like the physical laws of nature to be real and fixed and immune from manipulation. I wondered if that was possible in the real world.
Edit: Then every place where we do allow manipulation of the physical laws like the Big Bang we seem to be on the edge of understanding. There are lots of different views there.
-
Our posts crossed [:)]
I think the Planck Length came about from someone trying to assign a quantum value to spacial dimension. I never did understand the reasoning behind it.
-
Then you shouldn't be able to have the former state beside it.
Still, if Planck size is a correct description of where our 'spacetime' loses its coherence?
Then that is where the 'backdoor' might be situated?
It is the transitions from energy to matter that brought me to suspect that we didn't really have it just right yet. I didn't like the magical idea that energy just goes away and matter appears in its place.
But if you want to visualize the transition that way, what better place for a back door than a Planck length [:)]
-
Ok, if you use Feodora you have a plugin from Redhat somewhere on those pages:)
But be sure to check for 'dependencies' when you install it.
The 'installers' should make it an easy transition, but it may take some time.
http://www.fedorafaq.org/
Reading 'between the lines' I get the feeling that you want the universe to be a more ordered place than what it seems for the moment:)
Don't we all::))
You are very resourceful yor_on. Thanks for the link. I knew the site was there but didn't know it provided plugins.
-
yor_on; I viewed the link you provided about the Black Hole; it was very interesting. I noticed that the galaxy with the Black Hole at the center had jets of material probably ions jetting out form the center. Where can the stuff come from if not from the Black Hole. Maybe galaxies just coagulate stuff from their disks and squirt it out in the flat wise plane.
If so we could visualize a super massive object in place of a Black Hole.
-
Would it not be possible to do an experiment to test this relationship.
For example have a large a mass as possible and measure its gravity at different temperatures.
-
I don't think there's a question about whether mass increases with temperature; we all pretty much know that mass must increase because of the increased energy trapped in the local massive area. Gravity has a special relationship with mass, so it must also increase.
-
Yes but we don't know precisely what causes gravity so there is always room for surprises. I suppose I really am saying that I would like to see an experiment to confirm such a relationaship.
-
The problem with a direct experiment is that the mass-equivalence ratio between mass and energy gives a very small mass increase; much too small to measure with any device we now have.
-
An interesting question.
This question was first posed by "mainstream science" about one hundred years ago.
The plain vanilla interpretation of mass-energy equivalence implies through EFE that the curvature of space-time is related to the energy content of matter; and as the energy content of matter is said to increase with temperature, it was surmised that an increase of temperature might increase the curvature of space time and the gravitational mass of matter.
Experiments have yielded variable results but strangely enough, such non-zero results as exist suggest that gravitational mass actually decreases with increased temperature, which rather supports A Davies' assertion.
It appears that the contribution of temperature to gravitation is very small and negative
cf novafizika.com --The gravitational force temperature dependence (http://www.novafizika.com/The%20gravitational%20force%20temperature%20dependence.pdf)